IO Files: US/A/549
Memorandum by Ambassador William Dawson of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers
Reasons Motivating Latin American Support of Ukraine for Security Council; Estimate of Situation According to Present Information
The following summary is based on conversations had with a considerable number of Latin American Delegates by the members of the ARA team and reported in individual memoranda:
Although several Latin American Delegates disclaim knowledge of any deal or even profess to believe that no deal was made, there can, I think, be no doubt than an agreement was reached with the Russians. I think that Arce and Aranha both had a hand in this and one Latin American Delegate mentioned the Guatemalan and Venezuelan Deleg a role.
However, I do not believe that this deal is the sole reason for the continuing Latin American support of the Ukraine.
Knowing that William Sanders of the Department is a close friend of Dr. Alberto Lleras Camargo (Director General of the Pan American Union who was in Flushing on Tuesday), I called him up this afternoon and said that we should be interested in any information regarding Lleras Camargo’s estimate of the situation. Sanders said that as luck would have it he had had a talk with Lleras Camargo this afternoon and that the latter had expressed the view, based on conversations with a number of Latin American Delegates at Flushing, that in supporting the Ukraine the Latin American group was actuated primarily and essentially by its respect for the principle of regional [Page 152] representation. Sanders said that Lleras Camargo had mentioned no other motive.
Arguments based on respect for a principle bear considerable weight with many Latin Americans— … In this particular case, they may have some more selfish interest based on apprehension lest failure to elect a Slav state might establish a precedent which could eventually have the effect of depriving the Latin American group of its present representation on the Security Council (as was, I believed, mentioned this morning by Mr. Stevenson in reporting his conversation with a Mexican Delegate).
Other considerations which may affect the thinking of some Latin American Delegates are those noted by Ambassador Corrigan, namely that failure to elect a Slav non-permanent member would stiffen the Soviets in their opposition to any liberalization of the veto and that certain Latin Americans wish to avoid anything that might tend to sharpen the conflict between the United States and the U.S.S.R. Although I think that the Latin American group is definitely on our side, I believe also that not a few Latin Americans are concerned over the developing situation. Even some of our loyal friends, being less familiar than we are with the Soviet mentality and attitude, probably feel that an occasional friendly gesture towards Russia might have a generally beneficial effect from the standpoint of the United Nations.
Finally, I am inclined to believe that Aranha not only played a part in the deal with the Russians but has advocated continued support of the Ukraine. His motives are probably respect for the principle of regional representation and his personal desire to see this session of the General Assembly prove a great success. Incidentally, a tendency to favor compromise and avoid conflict is characteristic of Brazilian diplomacy in general and of Aranha in particular (as he demonstrated at the 1942 Rio Conference).
To sum up: I believe that the attitude of those Latin American Delegations which support the Ukraine may be attributed in varying degree to some or all of the following motives: A deal with the Slav bloc for votes for Argentina; respect for the principle of regional representation, coupled with the feeling that this principle is in the Latin American interest; the belief that failure to give the Slavs a non-permanent member would sharpen the United States–U.S.S.R. conflict to the detriment of the United Nations; and Aranha’s personal interest in a successful session.
Just how many Latin American Delegations are voting for India is not known. The number is estimated to be from 4 to 8. Wise has information to the effect that at the present time the following countries are for India: Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. Arce told me this morning that [Page 153] he has voted consistently for India but is not letting people know this. (It should be noted that Wise’s information is not firsthand and that it is not definitely known that all of the seven countries listed are actually voting for India). It seems likely however that, if we were interested in persuading them to do so, ten or more Latin American Delegations might be prepared either to vote for India or to abstain from voting.